but it has a supporting narration from Abū Hurayrah with a sound isnād from him, and its citation has already been mentioned under number (1735), so it is ṣaḥīḥ with it.

"Deliberation is in everything except in actions for the Hereafter." It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd (no. 4810), al-Ḥākim (1/62), and al-Bayhaqī in "al-Zuhd" (88/1) from al-Aʿmash, from Mālik ibn al-Ḥārith (Abū Dāwūd added: al-Aʿmash said: I heard them mentioning) from Muṣʿab ibn Saʿd from his father - al-Aʿmash said: and I do not know it except - from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). Al-Ḥākim said: "Ṣaḥīḥ according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs." And al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I say: There is some consideration, as this Mālik, who is al-Sulamī al-Raqī, was only narrated by al-Bukhārī in "al-Adab al-Mufrad," so it is according to the condition of Muslim alone. I say: Al-Mundhirī criticized it in "al-Targhīb" without significant detriment, saying (4/134): "Al-Aʿmash did not mention from whom he heard it, and he did not assert its elevation [to the Prophet]." I say: As for not asserting its elevation, the preponderance of assumption suffices, and this is evident from his saying: "and I do not know it except from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)." As for not mentioning from whom he heard it, this is an apparent criticism based on the fact that al-Aʿmash was a mudallis and did not explicitly state hearing, but scholars have accepted the muʿanʿan narrations of al-Aʿmash unless a break is evident in them. Al-Dhahabī said in his biography in "al-Mīzān": "Whenever he says: (from), there is a possibility of tadlīs except with his shaykhs from whom he narrated extensively, like Ibrāhīm, Abū Wāʾil, and Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān, for his narrations from this category are considered connected." The point from his statement is that the criticism of al-Aʿmash's muʿanʿan narration is not absolute,